If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration, and had anticipated droves of illegal immigrants, would they have wanted to give the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws?
Who knows? You might be right about the motivations of Congress back in 1868. But to prevent children of undocumented immigrants from being granted citizenship, you have to change or repeal the Fourteenth Amendment.
Regarding the discussion below concerning the 14th Amendment--
The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizneship for illegal immigrants, because in 1868 there were, and had never been, any illegal immigrants, because no law had ever restricted immigration.
The individual in this video is apparently unaware of the fact that the USA is a Republic, not a Democracy. His reference to our country as a such ( a Democracy) renders anything he has to say to be useless.
Why are you flagging every other comment you write as "spam?" Or is that some other person? Just delete the comment if you don't want people to see it.
OMG do these guys no longer read history books. Who in the hell put these assholes in charge. These people are relying on USEFUL IDIOTS Mao's term not mine to get what they want. Sorry I'm going to have to turn this off before I put my fist through my screen.
Are you suggesting that we should keep our current system because, in your view, it happens to give sparsely populated rural states preferential treatment in electing a president?
Sorry if the question about rural v. urban seemed hyperbolic, but here's what puzzled me. You're basically saying, "Only the current electoral college system stands between rural areas and political obscurity." Is that an accurate paraphrase? The question then becomes, "Does this mean that under a democratic presidential election policy enacted by the states, rural areas would lose some degree of representation?" And, "are those areas overly powerful in the current system?"
Candidates will then only need to campaign in the biggest cities. Our Founders were smarter than you are, there's a reason for things in the Constitution.
First of all, legislation supporting the primacy of a national popular vote does not conflict with any provision of the federal constitution in this country, because the power to appoint delegates to the electoral college is reserved to the individual state legislatures. Secondly, the purpose of a campaign is to sway public opinion at large, not simply to meet as many potential voters as possible, so a candidate would have a clear incentive to visit both urban and rural areas.
"the power to appoint delegates to the electoral college is reserved to the individual state"
--That part is true, but the intention was for the delegates to vote as their constituents prescribed by their votes. With this wrongful interpretation, their votes no longer count. Let's say if 100% of a state's voters cast ballots for Mr. Smith, but Mr. Jones won the popular vote in the rest of the states, then the delegates would vote for Jones. Then, what's the point in voting?
Consider how we currently apportion electoral votes. Representation at the electoral college devolves to the states based on population. We clearly value the principle of granting equal voting power to citizens regardless of where they may cast a federal ballot for president. Unfortunately for our democratic aspirations as a nation, we have not yet been completely successful in securing such equal voting power among the citizenry.
--That's just it, we don't cast federal ballots. The states, not the People, elect the President because it is a federal position. Members of Congress represent the people of their states in the government, the President represents the federal government as appointed by the states.
"our democratic aspirations"
--The USA isn't a Democracy, nor should it be, nor should it become one. We're a republic, FYI.
Please note that I never claimed our country is a democracy. On the contrary, we are (at least in theory) a democratic republic, because our representatives are elected by democratic processes, which is not a prerequisite to the formation of a republic (see ancient Rome). The goal of democratic elections where the federal government is concerned is entirely compatible with the principles of a republic.
"entirely compatible with the principles of a republic"
--But is not part of the design created by our Founders, or by the Constitution. I'll never cease to be amazed by the Left's overwhelming desire to change the Constitution. It's probably the greatest founding document in all of history and stands the test of the passing of time, changes in opinion, and challenges to it's wise design.
For the last time, there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about changing state election policy by statute legislation to respect the primacy of the national popular vote. Regarding your view of the political "Left," why does the "Right" obstinately view the document as a monolithic and static representation of eternal truth? Would you rather we had never enacted any of the crucial amendments that protect civil rights? Would you rather the 17th amendment had never passed?
"there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about changing state election policy by statute legislation to respect the primacy of the national popular vote"
--And for the last time, we as a nation could repeal the 1st Amendment. It's totally Constitutional to do so, but it's repeal isn't what our Founders intended.
Do you get it now? If not, you never will. I'm done. I've made my points, you have made bullshit arguments for unAmerican ideas. No thanks.
You want to talk about the founders? Fine. The founders perpetuated slavery, oppressed women, demonized and slaughtered the Indians, locked poverty-stricken citizens in debtor's prison, criminalized sedition at the expense of a free press under the Sedition Act of 1798, and allowed indentured servitude to persist at the expense of civil liberty and economic justice. Is that an argument for slavery, misogyny, genocide, plutocracy, censorship, and peonage? No! Of course not !
--Thank you, Mr. Marx, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Alinsky, and Obama for your profound opinion on our Founders. Right off the 45 Goals of Communism memo. Good job.
"McCarthy was right?" You guessed my reaction pretty accurately! Nice job!
So you believe McCarthy was right to abrogate the First Amendment by encouraging employers to black-list journalists, authors, playwrights, actors, dedicated public servants and any other prominent American citizen he even vaguely suspected of being a Communist, which is obviously not a crime in America? McCarthy abused his Senate office to censor Americans who dared speak out against his fear-mongering.
First, ideological viewpoints are not criminalized in America, so McCarthy had no legitimate reason as a Senator to investigate who was a Communist, nor did J. Edgar Hoover, who was at the time Director of the FBI. Second, McCarthy promoted censorship by intentionally creating a national climate of paranoia, and encouraging professional organizations, such as theater and acting guilds, to ostracize and fire suspected Communists.
Look, employers can let you go for your ideological beliefs or your party membership, as you've already stated, so what reason did McCarthy have to provide your standard of "tangible censorship?" He colluded with executives and studio managers to curtail free speech in America by encouraging and rationalizing their efforts to bar suspected Communists from employment in certain key professions that enjoyed the public limelight, thereby promoting censorship.
You ask for "something concrete" about McCarthy's abominable, witch-hunting demagoguery. How about hundreds of progressive American families forced into poverty by his slander after they were black-listed and lost their jobs? How about those proud Americans who moved to Canada in search of a land where liberty and freedom were actually treasured? How about the children who grew up in broken homes because McCarthy's virtual pogrom drove their parents to alcoholism? Concrete enough?
You speak of McCarthy's virtue in supposedly discovering "Communist infiltration of America." Actually, there were many, to use your beloved phrase, "natural-born" citizens of this country who believed strongly in Communist ideals. They were not some Russian-speaking cabal coming here from eastern Europe. Are you aware that America has had a domestic Communist Party since 1919?
"there were many, to use your beloved phrase, "natural-born" citizens of this country who believed strongly in Communist ideals"
--Where did I state the contrary?
"They were not some Russian-speaking cabal coming here from eastern Europe"s
--Thus, discovering who they were. Duh.
"Are you aware"
--Yes, but people on the Left, especially Communists, don't want people to know what they're true beliefs are, especially their Communist affiliation, especially back in the 1950s.
You object to my enumeration of issues in post-colonial American society which the Founding Fathers did not adequately address, such as slavery, peonage, women's rights, poverty, imperial expansion (erroneously seen as "Manifest Destiny" in later years). I recognize why the founding can be viewed as a triumphant moment, but my reason for giving these stark caveats is to demonstrate one point. The Founders were not gods, but men, and they clearly made some questionable decisions.
--They addressed what they needed to. You're just like Obama, you wanted them to include "what the government must do on your behalf." That's not what our government is supposed to be about, FYI.
"slavery"
--They tried to address slavery, but many states allowed it. There was no indentured servitude in the USA. Women had greater rights in some states where they could vote. Our govt isn't in the business of eliminating poverty. And expansion isn't evil.
A cursory glance at any serious history of the colonial and immediate post-colonial period can easily prove otherwise. What do you imagine incited the antipathy of Shay's Rebellion in 1786? Rural farmers could not escape the poverty into which they sank after working off their terms of indenture. Get your facts straight.
"Our government isn't in the business of eliminating poverty."
Right, and that's obviously not my argument. Go back and read my original comments on economic justice in the wake of the Revolution. The post-colonial government organized by the Founders perpetuated the oppressive practice of criminalizing poverty by throwing citizens into debtor's prison for lacking money owed to wealthy creditors, thereby ensuring they'd be unemployed and unable to come up with the required sums.
You complain, "That's not what our government is supposed to be about."
Lose the paternalistic desire to speak directly on behalf of the Founders. You have no monopoly on their legacy, because frankly their legacy is encompassed by the words of the Constitution, which we can all read perfectly well. As modern Americans, we have the power, and indeed responsibility, to determine "what our government is supposed to be about."
"Lose the paternalistic desire to speak directly on behalf of the Founders. You have no monopoly on their legacy"
--Okay. Please show me where in the Constitution it directs or prescribes that our govt should be in the medical and/or insurance business.
Also, show me where in the Constitution the federal govt is directed or prescribed to have any hand at all in the affairs of the citizens of the states. In other words, affairs that have nothing to do with interstate commerce.
You say, "we as a nation could repeal the 1st Amendment."
Right, and you know why that's not going to happen? Because morally competent Americans would zealously safeguard our freedom of the press, and of assembly. They would recognize and react furiously to the dangers of censorship and oppression. And incidentally, many of those same Americans, motivated by democratic principles, are working to enact laws respecting the moral authority of the national popular vote.
--Sure. Were you aware of the new version of the Fairness Doctrine? They're also developing a law that would require all journalists to be licensed. This licensing would require all legit journalists be in the validated employ of govt sanctioned news orgs of a minimum # of staff, etc. Say goodbye to bloggers, self publishers, etc. Hooray for freedom of the press!
I also recall a poll showing 65% of Americans didnt' believe in a free press.
"morally competent Americans would zealously safeguard our freedom of the press"
--But that wasn't even the point of what I wrote. I was comparing a democracy to a republic. But it seems making such mildly complex points is over your head.
Stop pretending that you hear "the Founding Fathers" whispering divine truth in your ear at night. The founders gave us the Constitution. Now they are dead. Our country belongs not only to the dead, but also to the living. As modern Americans, we ought to respect the Constitution. And we ought also to exercise independent judgement. Blindly invoking the founders demonstrates neither intelligence nor good, independent judgement. And it certainly does not demonstrate patriotism.
"Blindly invoking the founders demonstrates neither intelligence nor good"
--No, you're right. Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel are far, far smarter and wiser than Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and all those other selfish rich racist White guys. And they have far more integrity and insights into freedom & justice than those old dead guys, too. Right?
No, no, no, wait.... YOU'RE far smarter than our Founders, and wiser and have more integrity. Right?
You think my heroes are Pelosi and Rangel? Give me a break! I've never had any extraordinary enthusiasm for Pelosi, and Rangel comes across as a bumbling, embittered old fool who should have retired decades ago, or perhaps never run for election in the first place. I'm sure we'd both be glad to hear fresh voices on the floor of the House right now. Not every citizen who takes issue with your ideological views reflexively supports Democratic leaders in Congress.
You actually want to know whether I "get it now?" Look, what I "get" is that you have absolutely zero interest in having democratic elections for president. What I don't understand is why. You're clearly wedded to a narrow view of federalism, and you've explained your views in legal terms, but I honestly do not understand how you can possibly defend that argument morally. Do you not respect the principle of equal protection under the law? Why not count every vote equally?
"you have absolutely zero interest in having democratic elections for president"
--We never had it, and we're not supposed to have it. Why can't you understand anything in our Constitution?
"What I don't understand is why"
--I've explained it to you, but your hate & programming keep getting in the way of you using your own brain. My answer doesn't fit your Leftist agenda, so you act like you don't understand it as if I'm speaking Greek or something. It's so pathetic.
A while ago, speaking about democratic elections for president, you said, "we never had it, and we're not supposed to have it." The problem is, there's no such thing as "supposed to" in Constitutional law. Such arguments are based on conscience, convictions, ethics, morality, and propriety. Some of those arguments are based on the documents bequeathed by the Founding Fathers, and some are not, notably the abolition of slavery and our recognition in 1920 of women's right to vote.
"The problem is, there's no such thing as "supposed to" in Constitutional law"
--By "not supposed to" meant the Constitution states a different method, and our Founders intended a different method. First you seem kind of smart, then you let your the Liberal idiot inside you take over.
BTW, you just contradicted yourself. Now you say the text isn't all there is to the Constitution. So which is it going to be?
Regarding Constitutional interpretation, you said, "BTW, you just contradicted yourself. Now you say the text isn't all there is to the Constitution."
You're dead wrong. First, I said the words of the Fourteenth Amendment were clear in protecting natural-born citizens. Second, I said ideas about what we as a nation are "supposed" to do are often not part of the Constitution, but rather arise from personal views of morally acceptable policy.
--Friend, you don't even know what the term means. You're using slippery Liberal tactics to twist and misrepresent the facts of the issue. As the Founders intended, no one who was born in this nation to two foreign nationals would be a natural born citizen. Umm.... that's why there is a difference in terms, like "citizen," and "natural born citizen." But once again, you will refuse to acknowledge that.
Correct. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause is taken from the start of the Civil Rights Act of 1866--"All persons born in the U.S., AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to citizens of the U.S." Exclusion of the Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary.
The Indians were subject to "divided allegiance"::partly to the United States, and partly to their tribes.
"Divided allegiance", by means of that reasoning, applies also to exclude children of of resident aliens, legal or illegal, from birthright citizenship, because their parents, not being citizens themselves, (again-legal or illegal) have no official allegiance to the United States.
Children, as they reach the age of majority, are not legally bound to recognize any ancestral homeland for purposes of sworn national allegiance. Otherwise, many of our own countrymen might remain subjects of the Crown of England. Allegiance is not necessarily conferred by 'jus sanguinis' patterns of hereditary rights, and as Americans, we ought to be glad this is the case. Nonetheless, you are correct to identify illegal immigration as a serious problem.
You say regarding a popular vote, "our Founders intended a different method." To be precise about the origins of the Electoral College, you have to recognize a debt to institutions such as the College of Cardinals, which elects the Pope. Electors in the older tradition were never expected merely to "rubber-stamp" the wishes of any particular constituency. They were expected to debate and exercise personal judgement. You could just as easily argue that's what the Founders intended.
"You could just as easily argue that's what the Founders intended"
--They did. Now you're getting it. The truth shall set you free, but it will make you miserable first.
The delegates from the states were supposed to be much like our representatives in Congress. We believe they were to carry out our wishes, but do they? Sometimes, not always. Thus, not a Democracy.
Look, one more thing about your "democraps" remark. Sure, go ahead and make snide comments for a cheap laugh, but I have to give it to you straight here. People who speak about politics the way you do are poisoning the national debate with crass, vitriolic ad hominem attacks, and that's part of the reason our country is so bitterly fragmented along party lines. There are plenty of Liberals and Democrats who are just as guilty of using juvenile rhetoric, but please just stop.
--Your feelings get hurt pretty easily. "Thin skinned" doesn't begin to describe you. Or Obama.
"Why are you flagging every other comment you write as "spam?" Or is that some other person? Just delete the comment if you don't want people to see it."
--I'm not. And FYI only the video's poster can remove comments. I've posted comments which were instantly hidden as spam, meaning the system does it, too.
You're absolutely right to see any "super-delegates" who vote to change the party nomination as an obstacle to democratic elections. They should never be empowered to vote in such a potentially dangerous way. I agree with you on that one! Look, I'm not here to defend the Democratic Party apparatus, because frankly the organization angers me considerably, but rather to argue for certain changes to existing election laws regarding the presidential campaign.
The founders and the constitution are not entirely separate sources of information regarding proper governance. The founders codified their wisdom in the constitution, and the document is their legacy. Why should modern Americans be deemed any less capable of providing for the safety and welfare of the nation than those men? We are free to shape our own government, taking full advantage of the flexibility of the constitution in the process, and to amend the document as necessary.
The phrase "federal ballot" means a ballot used to register votes for federal office, not a ballot produced, distributed, or collected by the federal government. Of course the states elect federal representatives. That is a defining characteristic of federalism. The term "federal ballot" is simply used to distinguish from elections held to choose, for example, a state governor, or local elections such as might be held for the board of selectmen in an individual town.
--No, the People of the state's districts do, by a popular vote. Senators used to be appointed by the states per the Constitution, but the Wilson Progressives changed it to a statewide popular vote.
Yes, I do realize that ever since 1913, senators are democratically elected. And of course, representatives are democratically elected by congressional district. We are in agreement on the basic facts here. When I say "the states elect federal representatives," I mean that states carry out elections according to law to determine who goes to Washington. I was not suggesting the state legislatures appoint politicians to those offices, and I'm glad you raised the issue.
Of course states elect the president. That is part of our constitutional tradition of federalism. However, states help elect the president according to their own statutes governing the allocation of electoral votes. A state enjoys the freedom, vested in the democratically elected legislature, to cast electoral votes based on who wins the general election. Therefore, the states collectively, but not individually, have the authority to render the electoral college a mere formality.
Why has equal representation in federal elections proven elusive? One primary reason is that our current electoral college system is mathematically incapable of appointing a body of electors that perfectly replicates in microcosm the voting behavior of the general public. Federal electors from every state summarily ignore the expressed wishes of vast numbers of local voters in favor of the dominant local orthodoxy. These unfortunate dynamics can change the outcome of an election.
"Why has equal representation in federal elections proven elusive?"
--It hasn't.
"voting behavior of the general public"
--Voting behavior? You mean they should pay attention to "how" people vote as well as what they vote for? Or maybe how they "feel" when they vote? What are you trying to say?
"ignore the expressed wishes"
--So you're saying the Electoral votes aren't going to the politicians the people voted for? You mean like if they were awarded to someone else? Hmmm.
I say "equal representation in federal elections has proven elusive" because when a candidate who loses the general election wins the electoral college, some votes cast by ordinary Americans are basically deemed less important than others. This occurred most dramatically in 2000 when George W. Bush lost the popular vote but was nonetheless appointed president-elect by the Supreme Court. You cannot expect to carry an argument simply by saying "It hasn't," or some nonsense.
"loses the general election wins the electoral college"
--FYI: You win the gen. election by winning the Electoral College vote/allocation. You're referring to the popular vote count. But again, your belief in changing the electoral system is just as hypocritical as you think the current system is.
1st you must accept that the states, not the People, elect the Pres., bc it's a federal position. 2nd, if you allocate the votes to someone your state didn't vote for, that's wrong.
You are correct in saying that currently "the general election" is decided by the electoral college. I apologize for not making this abundantly clear. And yes, I was referring to the national popular vote.
Why is my belief in democratic presidential elections hypocritical? As a democratic republic, we ought to apply the same standards for democratic process to electing a president as we apply to the election of a senator or representative, especially in view of the president's mandate to represent every state and every person in the union.
We have been over the same weary ground before. Yes, in a democratic federal republic such as ours, states elect the president. The states also enjoy the legal privilege of casting their votes in accordance with the expressed wishes of the People of the United States of America. The states, of course, must approve electoral statutes adopting such a policy. Citizens who oppose those statutes can organize to prevent the legislature from adopting them.
The phrase "voting behavior of the general public" simply means "how many people across the country turned out on election day and who they voted for." This has nothing whatsoever to do with "feelings," as you wrongly speculate.
You really need to write what you actually think. Honestly, I think you're dodging what you wrote because you're trying to imply things you don't want to say directly. Then when I call you on them you backpedal.
Which would you rather see? A state voting the same way as the other 49 states in the union based on the number of votes cast, neighborhood by neighborhood, for each candidate, thereby ensuring the election of a popular candidate? Or a state using clout in the electoral college to force the rest of the nation to accept a candidate that does not command the highest degree of public confidence?
Democratic elections are not "like drones, getting in line," but rather provide the only reliable wellspring of public confidence in our government. Your myopic obsession with arcane and bitterly divisive federalist doctrine bespeaks a lack of respect for the electoral wishes of the People of the United States of America, and for the principle that every citizen is equal in the eyes of the law, a principle abrogated by the very nature of the electoral college in this country.
This is not about some new and imaginary conspiracy whereby "others must accept what you force on them." The basic premise of every election in this country has always been that voters who supported a losing candidate would nonetheless accept the legal authority of the victor. That is the nature of a democratic republic. The national popular vote to decide the presidential race would be no more or less coercive to ordinary citizens than any other election.
Your statement regarding the dubious shadowy threat of so-called "neo-communists" is naive, puerile, and barely deserves the dignity of a reply. You obviously know nothing about real Marxist philosophy, because otherwise you would already have realized how completely irrelevant communist doctrine is to the present conversation, seeing as we are discussing constitutional and statute law in a republic, the existential legitimacy of which has never been questioned in this forum.
The state legislature serves at the pleasure of the people, who can demand changes to the state policy regarding federal elections. They are not compelled to accept historical prescriptions for how the state ought to appoint federal electors. A statute providing state support for the popular vote is assumed to represent the wishes of the state constituency regarding how they prefer their votes to be cast by their appointed electors. Clearly, the choice is up to the states.
--How about if the people "demanded" the state legislature ban books, free speech, and the press? After all, given a Democracy must follow what the People want, the should be able to do so, right?
"how they prefer their votes to be cast by their appointed electors"
--So if the People's majority vote in that state went to Mr. Smith but Mr. Jones gets their Electoral votes instead, that's the People's wishes? How?
How can you simultaneously claim I am "a typical liberal" (an inaccurate statement) and also that I sympathize with people who want to "ban books", or otherwise abridge freedom of speech or of the press, as you have insinuated? Do "liberals" object to the First Amendment, in your experience?
--Well you are trying to make people's votes meaningless.
"Do "liberals" object"
--When it goes against their agenda. Students sent to sensativity training & gay pride parades for saying homosexuality goes against their religious beliefs. A man arrested for wearing McCain tshirt on election night. Kids banned from wearing Palin or US flag tshirts at school. The push for the new Fairness Doctrine. Need I go on?
Be careful. I use the term "demand" in an economic sense rather than a violent sense. Voters can "demand" change by electing leaders who are responsive to their concerns. Your inflammatory examples of mob rule are completely irrelevant, because every action you describe is blatantly unconstitutional by virtue of the First Amendment. Changing state electoral policy, on the other hand, does not violate the law and is not a credible example of the dangers of democracy, as you contend.
--But according to your belief in democracy the law must follow the People's will. So if they want the press banned or maybe just one newspaper or TV station then it must be done. Right? Similarly you're asking the govt to make your state's votes irrelevant. Bc if your state votes for Smith & not Jones they will be made irrelevant. How can you say they won't?
Your conception of "The People's Will" is an exceptionally violent and coercive one. Democratic governance is not equivalent to adopting "mob rule." I respect democracy. I also respect the Constitution of the United States of America. So abrogating freedom of the press is obviously unacceptable. Furthermore, I am not "asking the government to make a state's votes irrelevant." I am asking the state legislature to make the votes relevant to securing equal electoral representation.
You raise the objection that 100% of voters in a state might vote for Smith, who loses a general election to Jones, and subsequently be compelled to support Jones in the electoral college. Your contention is that none of those voters need ever have bothered to vote. This is equivalent to claiming that we should all be able to predict election outcomes with perfect accuracy. Those voters would have enjoyed an opportunity to sway the election just like every other voter in America.
You claim the purpose of a presidential campaign is to “campaign to the states.” Do you mean they ought to campaign in as many states as possible? That certainly does not occur under our current system, because only a few states are considered battlegrounds, and candidates tend to avoid states with a monolithic political orthodoxy unless their core support comes into question.
--No, the purpose is to get elected. The purpose of the Electoral College is to have the states elect the Pres. according to their constituents votes. The result of that is each state has a say. Therefore, a candidate ignores them at his own peril. I'm very sorry that this is all too complicated for you.
"does not occur"
--You're very wrong. I'd like to see you support that with facts. Candidates visit every state. As Obama claimed, he visited 57 out of 61.
--You see, that's called a "quote." I quoted you, as a courtesy, then wrote my response to that specific statement. So if you have a question of what I'm responding to, here's how you do it. You go find those words I quoted somewhere in a message you wrote. Then you will have your answer. See how that works now?
You say "the purpose of the electoral college is to have the states elect the president according to their constituents' votes." Only the first part of that sentence is true. The college is designed to allow states to elect the president. However, there is no stipulation that the states do so "according to their constituents' votes." State legislatures have the power to cast electoral votes by proxy in the electoral college according to their own state election laws.
--True just like there's no definition of "natural born citizen" in the Constitution. It was considered a known idea in our Founders' day. They are supposed to vote according to the voters wishes but are simply not compelled to. But when in modern history have they not? Their "choice" in voting is considered a formality. Remember the Democraps' "super-delegates?" The were created specifically to not have to vote per the People's votes. And what happened?
What do you even mean by "a known idea?" Having a common idea bantered around in American society back in 1776 is not legal grounds for enforcing such an idea at the expense of state legislative power in the year 2010. Also, your reference to "super-delegates" is out of place, because popular vote legislation passed by the states would appoint delegates not to act according to their own conscience, but to represent the majority wishes of the American people.
You claim, "there's no definition of 'natural-born citizen' in the Constitution."
Actually, there is. It's called the Fourteenth Amendment. The precise words "natural-born citizen" do not appear, but the concept is made perfectly clear. The amendment says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside." How could this be any more clear?
Why do you care what specific phrases the Constitution uses to describe a natural-born citizen? The legal principle is clearly there under the Fourteenth Amendment, and has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
--Yeah, you're right, the Constitution is simply an old, worn out document, written by rich self-important White racists, and is just outdated. I mean, why should anyone really care what it says?
"The legal principle is clearly there under the Fourteenth Amendment"
--No, it pertains to a different topic. See, you're still not getting it. It was meant to provide citizenship rights to former slaves. The natural born citizen clause describes a prerequisite.
Read the words of the Fourteenth Amendment carefully. Any person born in this country and subject to our laws is an American citizen. The emancipation of slaves following the Civil War was certainly a motivation for changing the Constitution, but the amendment goes way beyond simply turning slaves into voting citizens, as you can see when immigrant parents (who might have a green card but are not yet naturalized) have a child here who then automatically becomes a legal citizen.
"Any person born in this country and subject to our laws is an American citizen"
--Yes...... and?
"then automatically becomes a legal citizen"
--The intention was to only award citizenship to children of immigrants who were actually seeking, and making progress towards, citizenship. This goes against the "anchor baby" scenario.
I'm sorry, did I write "anchor baby?" I meant "instant Democrap." You see, the politicians (the Democraps) only favor keeping the incorrect interpretation only because they want to expand the party, and therefore keep them in office.
To address your concerns about immigration, you can lobby to change the Constitution in a way that reflects your personal view of those children. However, the words of the Fourteenth Amendment are quite clear, regardless of the motivation behind them. The Supreme Court has ruled, for example, that a Chinese man born to parents who had no legal right even to apply for naturalization was nonetheless a natural-born citizen, despite the fact that his entire family were subjects of China.
"the Fourteenth Amendment are quite clear, regardless of the motivation behind them"
--So according to you the words of the 1st Amdt don't disallow government censorship of speech, press, religion, and assembly by the states. Right? Because it only addresses Congress. You see why you can't simply rely on only the text? If we did that, then there'd be no need for "interpretation." We'd simply follow the text.
Regarding your bizarre conflation of First Amendment issues with those surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment, the answer is quite simple. As the Supreme Court has amply demonstrated in Gitlow v. New York (1925), under the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," the provisions of the First Amendment apply not only to Congress but to every state legislature.
You ask, "What about the 2nd Amendment? It obviously does not, hence the McDonald case."
No. The reasoning here is essentially identical to Fourteenth Amendment "due-process" interpretations in Gitlow v. New York (1925), extending the First Amendment to the states. The decision in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) extends the Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) to the states by virtue of the "due-process" clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
You say, "almost all [existing] gun laws, especially federal, are illegal."
Exactly. That's the idea. Not knowing precisely which gun laws you're including or excluding from the purview of McDonald v. Chicago, I'm not able to comment on whether you're right about every consequence of the case, but the decision clearly upholds the right to keep and bear arms. I'm certainly in favor of honoring the Second Amendment, since guns have historically played a role in escaping tyranny.
Absolutely. Your suspicion of my motives here is amusing. Firearms have always been preserved and treasured by American society, and for good reason. Plenty of Americans even today rely on hunting rifles and shotguns to derive some degree of nourishment from game or fowl in season. And violent urban crime is not driven by guns, but rather by profound travesties of economic, educational, medical, and legal justice.
A company builds an incinerator in a poor neighborhood because every upscale community organizes in vehement opposition. The incinerator produces airborne toxins, causing local children to develop asthma. Those children repeatedly miss school and are held back. One boy drops out of school, joins a gang, and ends up murdering a rival gang member. The boy is convicted and sentenced to life in prison, and the company makes a handsome profit. That's not justice.
@quantumcodex "Suppose" --You're "supposing" quite a lot. 1. Choice 2. Makes business sense, cheaper real estate & taxes 3. Business, local, state, & federal regulations 5. Choice 6. The company's fault? 7. Justice system at work 8. And hires more people, maybe the way the boy should have gone 9. The world is not fair, and it's not our govt's job to make it fair Get it now?
Frankly, we've already tried your economic philosophy in America, giving rise to obscenely concentrated wealth and power in the hands of industrialists known appropriately as Robber Barons.
Here's a second hypothetical, but reasonable, example.
A South Central Los Angeles high school in 2010 has 4,500 students in a building designed in 1963 to hold 2,000 students. Students never even try to eat lunch because the cafeteria is so hot, smelly, and overcrowded. The federal government then eliminates funding for the school, causing even more violence, because students are underperforming on standardized tests drawn up by curriculum experts in Washington. That's not justice.
Look, obviously criminals ought to be punished, but the point is, they're not necessarily the only ones who are morally culpable. Other forces do contribute to even local neighborhood atmospheres of fear, hatred, resentment, and anger, thereby contributing to periodic explosions of overt violence on the street.
You're apparently very confused about the distinction between moral responsibility and legal responsibility. They're not the same. And if you did argue, "society made me drive my car without valid registration," you'd just be a complete fool.
"And if you did argue, "society made me drive my car without valid registration," you'd just be a complete fool"
--Same with arguing that an industrial plant near where you live made you drop out of high school, join a gang, and kill someone. Personal responsibility. It's that concept that the Left has tried to erase from our society.
You claim, "the Left has tried to erase from our society" concepts of "personal responsibility." Give me a break. This is high comedy. Do you see any "personal responsibility" in committing perjury before the United States Congress, abrogating the Fourth Amendment with secret wire-tapping programs, violating the Geneva Convention with secret programs of extra-judicial torture, and conspiring to grant monopolistic "no-bid" contracts to Halliburton in Iraq? That's the Right's legacy.
Yes, President George W. Bush denied his constitutional obligation under the Fourth Amendment to obtain warrants to conduct surveillance on Americans, just as he denied his obligation to adhere to the principle of 'habeus corpus,' and his obligation to adhere to the Geneva Convention accords by not torturing prisoners. Telephone conversations of law-abiding Americans were tapped without any warrants or judicial oversight as part of the "war on terror."
You defend Bush, Jr. by saying "his Attorney General told him" he could legally violate the Fourth Amendment. So you're arguing he had no personal responsibility as president to determine the truth behind John Ashcroft's statements, or those of Alberto Gonzales? That's absurd. And he did not have any authority to circumvent the judicial system, because FISA was designed to smoothly integrate the courts into the process of gathering intelligence.
The problem is, Bush's policy was dismissive even of requesting warrants through the FISA courts after the fact. There are legal ways of conducting surveillance in America, but Bush's policy was not one of them.
George W. Bush was the commander-in-chief when army personnel reported to Donald Rumsfeld and other high-level commanders that Abu Ghraib prison was dangerously overcrowded and bordering on chaos. These expert United States Army voices on the ground in Iraq were routinely ignored, and as a consequence, chaos did indeed erupt at Abu Ghraib and prisoners were indeed tortured.
"Abu Ghraib prison was dangerously overcrowded and bordering on chaos"
--Probably why they assigned a General with experience to oversee the prison. I'm not saying that place wasn't fucked up, I'm saying it was a prison, not Club Med.
"chaos did indeed erupt at Abu Ghraib and prisoners were indeed tortured"
--There was no chaos. Their mistreatment was systematic & orderly. It all happened on the night/graveyard shift. If Bush wanted torture performed, why only then?
Torture did not only occur at Abu Ghraib "on the graveyard shift." That's the whole reason the CIA spent time and energy developing foreign detention centers in places such as Saudi Arabia, or Egypt. Prisoners were handed over to CIA and foreign interrogators at these "black sites" for systematic torture.
"Prisoners were handed over to CIA and foreign interrogators at these "black sites" for systematic torture"
--If it's illegal to hand prisoners over with the intent of torture, why not just torture the prisoners themselves? Doesn't make sense, even when its being done covertly.
You torture people in a foreign country so Americans who care about the rule of law in this country never find out about the torture programs, at least in theory. Your reasoning is like saying, "if murder is a crime, why hire a hit man? Why not just do it myself and shoulder the blame?" Obviously, you're not going to say such a thing if you're thinking clearly, because you'd just be coming closer to getting caught red-handed and later convicted of a felony.
You say, about Abu Ghraib, "their mistreatment was systematic and orderly." Frankly, that's even worse than chaos. Having systematic mistreatment of prisoners implicates the highest levels of military and civilian leadership.
--Umm... please go look up the word "chaos." It doesn't mean "stuff I don't like." It is the opposite of order & system.
"implicates the highest levels of military and civilian leadership"
--Only if they ordered it and approved of it. Those doing the mistreatment on their own can be orderly & systematic, you know. I don't see how you make thise leaps of logic & fact.
Please go away. You're a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist, so there's no getting through to you even with facts, logic, morality, reasoning, or historical precedent. You have to come around to reality on your own, like I did.
Besides, this is all way off topic. Goodbye. Oh, wait, you're a Marxist so "Goodbye" is too close to a religious references. So, how about "smell you later."
I'm honestly amazed by your callous statements about American society. So I'm just going to repeat one here, in a position of emphasis and glory for other readers, if by some miracle there are any, to read at some future date.
"WE DON'T apply the same standards of ethics, morality, and compassion to the poor" as we do to the wealthy.
What a despicably true statement about America today.
And this conversation has to do with Hertzberg's discussion of N.P.V. Exactly how?
thmdpa27 1 year ago
If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration, and had anticipated droves of illegal immigrants, would they have wanted to give the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws?
I don't think so.
GammaSigmaBeta 1 year ago
Comment removed
quantumcodex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GammaSigmaBeta
Who knows? You might be right about the motivations of Congress back in 1868. But to prevent children of undocumented immigrants from being granted citizenship, you have to change or repeal the Fourteenth Amendment.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
Regarding the discussion below concerning the 14th Amendment--
The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizneship for illegal immigrants, because in 1868 there were, and had never been, any illegal immigrants, because no law had ever restricted immigration.
GammaSigmaBeta 1 year ago
The individual in this video is apparently unaware of the fact that the USA is a Republic, not a Democracy. His reference to our country as a such ( a Democracy) renders anything he has to say to be useless.
No Democracy, no popular vote.
GammaSigmaBeta 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Why are you flagging every other comment you write as "spam?" Or is that some other person? Just delete the comment if you don't want people to see it.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
Oh no... no , no , no. This is a perfect example of a USEFUL IDIOT. It's clear he is high on HOPIUM.
computerpurple 1 year ago
Thanks for the video
ZodiacSystem 1 year ago
OMG do these guys no longer read history books. Who in the hell put these assholes in charge. These people are relying on USEFUL IDIOTS Mao's term not mine to get what they want. Sorry I'm going to have to turn this off before I put my fist through my screen.
dynamitemike65 1 year ago
Are you suggesting that we should keep our current system because, in your view, it happens to give sparsely populated rural states preferential treatment in electing a president?
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"give sparsely populated rural states preferential treatment"
--Please, where did I say or imply that, and who said that, ever, and I'd like to see you try and substantiate your implication.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Sorry if the question about rural v. urban seemed hyperbolic, but here's what puzzled me. You're basically saying, "Only the current electoral college system stands between rural areas and political obscurity." Is that an accurate paraphrase? The question then becomes, "Does this mean that under a democratic presidential election policy enacted by the states, rural areas would lose some degree of representation?" And, "are those areas overly powerful in the current system?"
quantumcodex 1 year ago
This is wrong. This is propaganda.
Candidates will then only need to campaign in the biggest cities. Our Founders were smarter than you are, there's a reason for things in the Constitution.
NoGuff 1 year ago
Comment removed
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
First of all, legislation supporting the primacy of a national popular vote does not conflict with any provision of the federal constitution in this country, because the power to appoint delegates to the electoral college is reserved to the individual state legislatures. Secondly, the purpose of a campaign is to sway public opinion at large, not simply to meet as many potential voters as possible, so a candidate would have a clear incentive to visit both urban and rural areas.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"the power to appoint delegates to the electoral college is reserved to the individual state"
--That part is true, but the intention was for the delegates to vote as their constituents prescribed by their votes. With this wrongful interpretation, their votes no longer count. Let's say if 100% of a state's voters cast ballots for Mr. Smith, but Mr. Jones won the popular vote in the rest of the states, then the delegates would vote for Jones. Then, what's the point in voting?
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Consider how we currently apportion electoral votes. Representation at the electoral college devolves to the states based on population. We clearly value the principle of granting equal voting power to citizens regardless of where they may cast a federal ballot for president. Unfortunately for our democratic aspirations as a nation, we have not yet been completely successful in securing such equal voting power among the citizenry.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
Devolves? Sounds pretty objective.
"cast a federal ballot for president"
--That's just it, we don't cast federal ballots. The states, not the People, elect the President because it is a federal position. Members of Congress represent the people of their states in the government, the President represents the federal government as appointed by the states.
"our democratic aspirations"
--The USA isn't a Democracy, nor should it be, nor should it become one. We're a republic, FYI.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Please note that I never claimed our country is a democracy. On the contrary, we are (at least in theory) a democratic republic, because our representatives are elected by democratic processes, which is not a prerequisite to the formation of a republic (see ancient Rome). The goal of democratic elections where the federal government is concerned is entirely compatible with the principles of a republic.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"elected by democratic processes"
--Okay. Then I apologize, I misunderstood you.
"entirely compatible with the principles of a republic"
--But is not part of the design created by our Founders, or by the Constitution. I'll never cease to be amazed by the Left's overwhelming desire to change the Constitution. It's probably the greatest founding document in all of history and stands the test of the passing of time, changes in opinion, and challenges to it's wise design.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
For the last time, there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about changing state election policy by statute legislation to respect the primacy of the national popular vote. Regarding your view of the political "Left," why does the "Right" obstinately view the document as a monolithic and static representation of eternal truth? Would you rather we had never enacted any of the crucial amendments that protect civil rights? Would you rather the 17th amendment had never passed?
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about changing state election policy by statute legislation to respect the primacy of the national popular vote"
--And for the last time, we as a nation could repeal the 1st Amendment. It's totally Constitutional to do so, but it's repeal isn't what our Founders intended.
Do you get it now? If not, you never will. I'm done. I've made my points, you have made bullshit arguments for unAmerican ideas. No thanks.
NoGuff 1 year ago 2
@NoGuff
You want to talk about the founders? Fine. The founders perpetuated slavery, oppressed women, demonized and slaughtered the Indians, locked poverty-stricken citizens in debtor's prison, criminalized sedition at the expense of a free press under the Sedition Act of 1798, and allowed indentured servitude to persist at the expense of civil liberty and economic justice. Is that an argument for slavery, misogyny, genocide, plutocracy, censorship, and peonage? No! Of course not !
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"The founders perpetuated slavery...."
--Thank you, Mr. Marx, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Alinsky, and Obama for your profound opinion on our Founders. Right off the 45 Goals of Communism memo. Good job.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Such a thought-provoking reply. How insightful of you. Do you even know what Communism is? I'm no more a Communist than you are a Fascist.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"Do you even know what Communism is?"
--Yes, my first instruction in Communism was before you were even born, you moron.
"I'm no more a Communist than you are a Fascist."
--Fascists are Socialists, you nimrod. Meaning YOU, not me.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
I'm so glad to see the noble tradition of McCarthy's medieval inquisitions being carried into the future by the stalwart defenders of our country.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"McCarthy's medieval inquisitions"
--Really? How many times did he use the rack on people? I'm very curious.
By the way, and I'm sure you won't like this, but McCarthy was right.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
"McCarthy was right?" You guessed my reaction pretty accurately! Nice job!
So you believe McCarthy was right to abrogate the First Amendment by encouraging employers to black-list journalists, authors, playwrights, actors, dedicated public servants and any other prominent American citizen he even vaguely suspected of being a Communist, which is obviously not a crime in America? McCarthy abused his Senate office to censor Americans who dared speak out against his fear-mongering.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"So you believe McCarthy was right to abrogate the First Amendment"
--Did I say that? No. He was right about his suspicions of Communist infiltration of America. Damn, why must you twist everything?
BTW, studios were free to blacklist anyone they felt like. Its illegal for the govt to force private companies to blacklist people.
"citizen he even vaguely suspected of being a Communist"
--But it turns out he was right about them.
"censor Americans who dared speak out"
--How?
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
First, ideological viewpoints are not criminalized in America, so McCarthy had no legitimate reason as a Senator to investigate who was a Communist, nor did J. Edgar Hoover, who was at the time Director of the FBI. Second, McCarthy promoted censorship by intentionally creating a national climate of paranoia, and encouraging professional organizations, such as theater and acting guilds, to ostracize and fire suspected Communists.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"ideological viewpoints are not criminalized in America, so McCarthy had no legitimate reason"
--You're right, but he was investigating their actions. Those he was investigating were plotting against the USA. That's what Communists do.
"promoted censorship"
--So nothing tangible, there, huh? The government either engages in censorship, or not. Please show me something concrete.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Look, employers can let you go for your ideological beliefs or your party membership, as you've already stated, so what reason did McCarthy have to provide your standard of "tangible censorship?" He colluded with executives and studio managers to curtail free speech in America by encouraging and rationalizing their efforts to bar suspected Communists from employment in certain key professions that enjoyed the public limelight, thereby promoting censorship.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
You ask for "something concrete" about McCarthy's abominable, witch-hunting demagoguery. How about hundreds of progressive American families forced into poverty by his slander after they were black-listed and lost their jobs? How about those proud Americans who moved to Canada in search of a land where liberty and freedom were actually treasured? How about the children who grew up in broken homes because McCarthy's virtual pogrom drove their parents to alcoholism? Concrete enough?
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
You speak of McCarthy's virtue in supposedly discovering "Communist infiltration of America." Actually, there were many, to use your beloved phrase, "natural-born" citizens of this country who believed strongly in Communist ideals. They were not some Russian-speaking cabal coming here from eastern Europe. Are you aware that America has had a domestic Communist Party since 1919?
quantumcodex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quantumcodex
"there were many, to use your beloved phrase, "natural-born" citizens of this country who believed strongly in Communist ideals"
--Where did I state the contrary?
"They were not some Russian-speaking cabal coming here from eastern Europe"s
--Thus, discovering who they were. Duh.
"Are you aware"
--Yes, but people on the Left, especially Communists, don't want people to know what they're true beliefs are, especially their Communist affiliation, especially back in the 1950s.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
"Russian-speaking cabal"
"Thus, discovering who they were. Duh."
Have you ever heard of bilingualism? Some people do speak more than one language, although I'm not sure how many of them you know personally.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
You object to my enumeration of issues in post-colonial American society which the Founding Fathers did not adequately address, such as slavery, peonage, women's rights, poverty, imperial expansion (erroneously seen as "Manifest Destiny" in later years). I recognize why the founding can be viewed as a triumphant moment, but my reason for giving these stark caveats is to demonstrate one point. The Founders were not gods, but men, and they clearly made some questionable decisions.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"adequately address"
--They addressed what they needed to. You're just like Obama, you wanted them to include "what the government must do on your behalf." That's not what our government is supposed to be about, FYI.
"slavery"
--They tried to address slavery, but many states allowed it. There was no indentured servitude in the USA. Women had greater rights in some states where they could vote. Our govt isn't in the business of eliminating poverty. And expansion isn't evil.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
"There was no indentured servitude in the USA."
A cursory glance at any serious history of the colonial and immediate post-colonial period can easily prove otherwise. What do you imagine incited the antipathy of Shay's Rebellion in 1786? Rural farmers could not escape the poverty into which they sank after working off their terms of indenture. Get your facts straight.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
"Our government isn't in the business of eliminating poverty."
Right, and that's obviously not my argument. Go back and read my original comments on economic justice in the wake of the Revolution. The post-colonial government organized by the Founders perpetuated the oppressive practice of criminalizing poverty by throwing citizens into debtor's prison for lacking money owed to wealthy creditors, thereby ensuring they'd be unemployed and unable to come up with the required sums.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
"Expansion isn't evil."
That depends on how the expansion is conducted, and whether you see genocide as acceptable foreign and domestic policy.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
You complain, "That's not what our government is supposed to be about."
Lose the paternalistic desire to speak directly on behalf of the Founders. You have no monopoly on their legacy, because frankly their legacy is encompassed by the words of the Constitution, which we can all read perfectly well. As modern Americans, we have the power, and indeed responsibility, to determine "what our government is supposed to be about."
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"Lose the paternalistic desire to speak directly on behalf of the Founders. You have no monopoly on their legacy"
--Okay. Please show me where in the Constitution it directs or prescribes that our govt should be in the medical and/or insurance business.
Also, show me where in the Constitution the federal govt is directed or prescribed to have any hand at all in the affairs of the citizens of the states. In other words, affairs that have nothing to do with interstate commerce.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
You say, "we as a nation could repeal the 1st Amendment."
Right, and you know why that's not going to happen? Because morally competent Americans would zealously safeguard our freedom of the press, and of assembly. They would recognize and react furiously to the dangers of censorship and oppression. And incidentally, many of those same Americans, motivated by democratic principles, are working to enact laws respecting the moral authority of the national popular vote.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"safeguard our freedom of the press"
--Sure. Were you aware of the new version of the Fairness Doctrine? They're also developing a law that would require all journalists to be licensed. This licensing would require all legit journalists be in the validated employ of govt sanctioned news orgs of a minimum # of staff, etc. Say goodbye to bloggers, self publishers, etc. Hooray for freedom of the press!
I also recall a poll showing 65% of Americans didnt' believe in a free press.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"morally competent Americans would zealously safeguard our freedom of the press"
--But that wasn't even the point of what I wrote. I was comparing a democracy to a republic. But it seems making such mildly complex points is over your head.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Stop pretending that you hear "the Founding Fathers" whispering divine truth in your ear at night. The founders gave us the Constitution. Now they are dead. Our country belongs not only to the dead, but also to the living. As modern Americans, we ought to respect the Constitution. And we ought also to exercise independent judgement. Blindly invoking the founders demonstrates neither intelligence nor good, independent judgement. And it certainly does not demonstrate patriotism.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"Blindly invoking the founders demonstrates neither intelligence nor good"
--No, you're right. Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel are far, far smarter and wiser than Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and all those other selfish rich racist White guys. And they have far more integrity and insights into freedom & justice than those old dead guys, too. Right?
No, no, no, wait.... YOU'RE far smarter than our Founders, and wiser and have more integrity. Right?
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
You think my heroes are Pelosi and Rangel? Give me a break! I've never had any extraordinary enthusiasm for Pelosi, and Rangel comes across as a bumbling, embittered old fool who should have retired decades ago, or perhaps never run for election in the first place. I'm sure we'd both be glad to hear fresh voices on the floor of the House right now. Not every citizen who takes issue with your ideological views reflexively supports Democratic leaders in Congress.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"I've never had any extraordinary enthusiasm for Pelosi"
--Wow, please learn to control your hatred!!!! I can excuse such an outburst only once. My goodness, what a display.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
You actually want to know whether I "get it now?" Look, what I "get" is that you have absolutely zero interest in having democratic elections for president. What I don't understand is why. You're clearly wedded to a narrow view of federalism, and you've explained your views in legal terms, but I honestly do not understand how you can possibly defend that argument morally. Do you not respect the principle of equal protection under the law? Why not count every vote equally?
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"you have absolutely zero interest in having democratic elections for president"
--We never had it, and we're not supposed to have it. Why can't you understand anything in our Constitution?
"What I don't understand is why"
--I've explained it to you, but your hate & programming keep getting in the way of you using your own brain. My answer doesn't fit your Leftist agenda, so you act like you don't understand it as if I'm speaking Greek or something. It's so pathetic.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
A while ago, speaking about democratic elections for president, you said, "we never had it, and we're not supposed to have it." The problem is, there's no such thing as "supposed to" in Constitutional law. Such arguments are based on conscience, convictions, ethics, morality, and propriety. Some of those arguments are based on the documents bequeathed by the Founding Fathers, and some are not, notably the abolition of slavery and our recognition in 1920 of women's right to vote.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"The problem is, there's no such thing as "supposed to" in Constitutional law"
--By "not supposed to" meant the Constitution states a different method, and our Founders intended a different method. First you seem kind of smart, then you let your the Liberal idiot inside you take over.
BTW, you just contradicted yourself. Now you say the text isn't all there is to the Constitution. So which is it going to be?
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
@NoGuff
Regarding Constitutional interpretation, you said, "BTW, you just contradicted yourself. Now you say the text isn't all there is to the Constitution."
You're dead wrong. First, I said the words of the Fourteenth Amendment were clear in protecting natural-born citizens. Second, I said ideas about what we as a nation are "supposed" to do are often not part of the Constitution, but rather arise from personal views of morally acceptable policy.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"protecting natural-born citizens"
--Friend, you don't even know what the term means. You're using slippery Liberal tactics to twist and misrepresent the facts of the issue. As the Founders intended, no one who was born in this nation to two foreign nationals would be a natural born citizen. Umm.... that's why there is a difference in terms, like "citizen," and "natural born citizen." But once again, you will refuse to acknowledge that.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff -
Correct. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause is taken from the start of the Civil Rights Act of 1866--"All persons born in the U.S., AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to citizens of the U.S." Exclusion of the Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary.
The Indians were subject to "divided allegiance"::partly to the United States, and partly to their tribes.
GammaSigmaBeta 1 year ago
@GammaSigmaBeta
Right. And the Indians were later granted citizenship by the Snyder Act of 1924.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
Yes.
The Snyder Act pertained exclusively/specifically to indigenous people, i.e., Indians.
It didn't address any other groups of non-citizens.
GammaSigmaBeta 1 year ago
@NoGuff
"Divided allegiance", by means of that reasoning, applies also to exclude children of of resident aliens, legal or illegal, from birthright citizenship, because their parents, not being citizens themselves, (again-legal or illegal) have no official allegiance to the United States.
GammaSigmaBeta 1 year ago
@GammaSigmaBeta
Children, as they reach the age of majority, are not legally bound to recognize any ancestral homeland for purposes of sworn national allegiance. Otherwise, many of our own countrymen might remain subjects of the Crown of England. Allegiance is not necessarily conferred by 'jus sanguinis' patterns of hereditary rights, and as Americans, we ought to be glad this is the case. Nonetheless, you are correct to identify illegal immigration as a serious problem.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
You say regarding a popular vote, "our Founders intended a different method." To be precise about the origins of the Electoral College, you have to recognize a debt to institutions such as the College of Cardinals, which elects the Pope. Electors in the older tradition were never expected merely to "rubber-stamp" the wishes of any particular constituency. They were expected to debate and exercise personal judgement. You could just as easily argue that's what the Founders intended.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quantumcodex
"You could just as easily argue that's what the Founders intended"
--They did. Now you're getting it. The truth shall set you free, but it will make you miserable first.
The delegates from the states were supposed to be much like our representatives in Congress. We believe they were to carry out our wishes, but do they? Sometimes, not always. Thus, not a Democracy.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"Do you not respect the principle of equal protection under the law?"
--It has nothing to do with that. What are you talking about? Can't you simply make sense?
"Why not count every vote equally?"
--We do. The only people who don't ARE THE DEMOCRAPS!!! Do you remember the "superdelegates?" How is that fair & just?
Please stop telling me about morals and equality while you and your Communist-inspired cadre work to do just the opposite.
NoGuff 1 year ago
Comment removed
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
So your strategy is to call them "the democraps?"
How mature and constructive to the debate.
Do yourself a favor and grow up already.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"mature and constructive"
--Its neither, but it is descriptive, and funny.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Look, one more thing about your "democraps" remark. Sure, go ahead and make snide comments for a cheap laugh, but I have to give it to you straight here. People who speak about politics the way you do are poisoning the national debate with crass, vitriolic ad hominem attacks, and that's part of the reason our country is so bitterly fragmented along party lines. There are plenty of Liberals and Democrats who are just as guilty of using juvenile rhetoric, but please just stop.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"but please just stop"
--Your feelings get hurt pretty easily. "Thin skinned" doesn't begin to describe you. Or Obama.
"Why are you flagging every other comment you write as "spam?" Or is that some other person? Just delete the comment if you don't want people to see it."
--I'm not. And FYI only the video's poster can remove comments. I've posted comments which were instantly hidden as spam, meaning the system does it, too.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
You're absolutely right to see any "super-delegates" who vote to change the party nomination as an obstacle to democratic elections. They should never be empowered to vote in such a potentially dangerous way. I agree with you on that one! Look, I'm not here to defend the Democratic Party apparatus, because frankly the organization angers me considerably, but rather to argue for certain changes to existing election laws regarding the presidential campaign.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quantumcodex
"to argue for certain changes to existing election laws"
--Which men far more wise than the two of us designed. Yet, you feel you must change them because you know better.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
The founders and the constitution are not entirely separate sources of information regarding proper governance. The founders codified their wisdom in the constitution, and the document is their legacy. Why should modern Americans be deemed any less capable of providing for the safety and welfare of the nation than those men? We are free to shape our own government, taking full advantage of the flexibility of the constitution in the process, and to amend the document as necessary.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
The phrase "federal ballot" means a ballot used to register votes for federal office, not a ballot produced, distributed, or collected by the federal government. Of course the states elect federal representatives. That is a defining characteristic of federalism. The term "federal ballot" is simply used to distinguish from elections held to choose, for example, a state governor, or local elections such as might be held for the board of selectmen in an individual town.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"the states elect federal representatives"
--No, the People of the state's districts do, by a popular vote. Senators used to be appointed by the states per the Constitution, but the Wilson Progressives changed it to a statewide popular vote.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Yes, I do realize that ever since 1913, senators are democratically elected. And of course, representatives are democratically elected by congressional district. We are in agreement on the basic facts here. When I say "the states elect federal representatives," I mean that states carry out elections according to law to determine who goes to Washington. I was not suggesting the state legislatures appoint politicians to those offices, and I'm glad you raised the issue.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Of course states elect the president. That is part of our constitutional tradition of federalism. However, states help elect the president according to their own statutes governing the allocation of electoral votes. A state enjoys the freedom, vested in the democratically elected legislature, to cast electoral votes based on who wins the general election. Therefore, the states collectively, but not individually, have the authority to render the electoral college a mere formality.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quantumcodex
"A state enjoys the freedom, vested in the democratically elected legislature, to cast electoral votes based on who wins the general election"
--Just like they're free to pass laws that take away freedoms. Right?
NoGuff 1 year ago
Comment removed
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Why has equal representation in federal elections proven elusive? One primary reason is that our current electoral college system is mathematically incapable of appointing a body of electors that perfectly replicates in microcosm the voting behavior of the general public. Federal electors from every state summarily ignore the expressed wishes of vast numbers of local voters in favor of the dominant local orthodoxy. These unfortunate dynamics can change the outcome of an election.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"Why has equal representation in federal elections proven elusive?"
--It hasn't.
"voting behavior of the general public"
--Voting behavior? You mean they should pay attention to "how" people vote as well as what they vote for? Or maybe how they "feel" when they vote? What are you trying to say?
"ignore the expressed wishes"
--So you're saying the Electoral votes aren't going to the politicians the people voted for? You mean like if they were awarded to someone else? Hmmm.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
I say "equal representation in federal elections has proven elusive" because when a candidate who loses the general election wins the electoral college, some votes cast by ordinary Americans are basically deemed less important than others. This occurred most dramatically in 2000 when George W. Bush lost the popular vote but was nonetheless appointed president-elect by the Supreme Court. You cannot expect to carry an argument simply by saying "It hasn't," or some nonsense.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"loses the general election wins the electoral college"
--FYI: You win the gen. election by winning the Electoral College vote/allocation. You're referring to the popular vote count. But again, your belief in changing the electoral system is just as hypocritical as you think the current system is.
1st you must accept that the states, not the People, elect the Pres., bc it's a federal position. 2nd, if you allocate the votes to someone your state didn't vote for, that's wrong.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
You are correct in saying that currently "the general election" is decided by the electoral college. I apologize for not making this abundantly clear. And yes, I was referring to the national popular vote.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Why is my belief in democratic presidential elections hypocritical? As a democratic republic, we ought to apply the same standards for democratic process to electing a president as we apply to the election of a senator or representative, especially in view of the president's mandate to represent every state and every person in the union.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
We have been over the same weary ground before. Yes, in a democratic federal republic such as ours, states elect the president. The states also enjoy the legal privilege of casting their votes in accordance with the expressed wishes of the People of the United States of America. The states, of course, must approve electoral statutes adopting such a policy. Citizens who oppose those statutes can organize to prevent the legislature from adopting them.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
The phrase "voting behavior of the general public" simply means "how many people across the country turned out on election day and who they voted for." This has nothing whatsoever to do with "feelings," as you wrongly speculate.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"simply means"
--So you mean the resuls of the vote. Right?
You really need to write what you actually think. Honestly, I think you're dodging what you wrote because you're trying to imply things you don't want to say directly. Then when I call you on them you backpedal.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Which would you rather see? A state voting the same way as the other 49 states in the union based on the number of votes cast, neighborhood by neighborhood, for each candidate, thereby ensuring the election of a popular candidate? Or a state using clout in the electoral college to force the rest of the nation to accept a candidate that does not command the highest degree of public confidence?
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"Which would you rather see?"
--What I'd like to see is you finally answering a direct question.
"A state voting the same way as the other 49 states"
--Like drones, getting in line? It just kills you that others have a different opinion, doesn't it?
"using clout"
--Huh? You must mean "voting the way they're free to."
"to force the rest of the nation to accept a candidate"
--But others must accept what you force on them. Right?
You Neo-Communists always amaze me.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Democratic elections are not "like drones, getting in line," but rather provide the only reliable wellspring of public confidence in our government. Your myopic obsession with arcane and bitterly divisive federalist doctrine bespeaks a lack of respect for the electoral wishes of the People of the United States of America, and for the principle that every citizen is equal in the eyes of the law, a principle abrogated by the very nature of the electoral college in this country.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
This is not about some new and imaginary conspiracy whereby "others must accept what you force on them." The basic premise of every election in this country has always been that voters who supported a losing candidate would nonetheless accept the legal authority of the victor. That is the nature of a democratic republic. The national popular vote to decide the presidential race would be no more or less coercive to ordinary citizens than any other election.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Your statement regarding the dubious shadowy threat of so-called "neo-communists" is naive, puerile, and barely deserves the dignity of a reply. You obviously know nothing about real Marxist philosophy, because otherwise you would already have realized how completely irrelevant communist doctrine is to the present conversation, seeing as we are discussing constitutional and statute law in a republic, the existential legitimacy of which has never been questioned in this forum.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
The state legislature serves at the pleasure of the people, who can demand changes to the state policy regarding federal elections. They are not compelled to accept historical prescriptions for how the state ought to appoint federal electors. A statute providing state support for the popular vote is assumed to represent the wishes of the state constituency regarding how they prefer their votes to be cast by their appointed electors. Clearly, the choice is up to the states.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"demand changes to the state policy"
"historical prescriptions"
--How about if the people "demanded" the state legislature ban books, free speech, and the press? After all, given a Democracy must follow what the People want, the should be able to do so, right?
"how they prefer their votes to be cast by their appointed electors"
--So if the People's majority vote in that state went to Mr. Smith but Mr. Jones gets their Electoral votes instead, that's the People's wishes? How?
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
How can you simultaneously claim I am "a typical liberal" (an inaccurate statement) and also that I sympathize with people who want to "ban books", or otherwise abridge freedom of speech or of the press, as you have insinuated? Do "liberals" object to the First Amendment, in your experience?
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"inaccurate"
--Actually, spot-on.
"that I sympathize with people"
--Well you are trying to make people's votes meaningless.
"Do "liberals" object"
--When it goes against their agenda. Students sent to sensativity training & gay pride parades for saying homosexuality goes against their religious beliefs. A man arrested for wearing McCain tshirt on election night. Kids banned from wearing Palin or US flag tshirts at school. The push for the new Fairness Doctrine. Need I go on?
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Be careful. I use the term "demand" in an economic sense rather than a violent sense. Voters can "demand" change by electing leaders who are responsive to their concerns. Your inflammatory examples of mob rule are completely irrelevant, because every action you describe is blatantly unconstitutional by virtue of the First Amendment. Changing state electoral policy, on the other hand, does not violate the law and is not a credible example of the dangers of democracy, as you contend.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"economic sense"
--Ok, I misunderstood.
"unconstitutional"
--But according to your belief in democracy the law must follow the People's will. So if they want the press banned or maybe just one newspaper or TV station then it must be done. Right? Similarly you're asking the govt to make your state's votes irrelevant. Bc if your state votes for Smith & not Jones they will be made irrelevant. How can you say they won't?
"does not violate the law"
-Violates the purpose of it.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Your conception of "The People's Will" is an exceptionally violent and coercive one. Democratic governance is not equivalent to adopting "mob rule." I respect democracy. I also respect the Constitution of the United States of America. So abrogating freedom of the press is obviously unacceptable. Furthermore, I am not "asking the government to make a state's votes irrelevant." I am asking the state legislature to make the votes relevant to securing equal electoral representation.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"sway public opinion at large"
--No, it is to campaign to the states. Thus, states rights, Electoral College, President elected by the states not a popular vote.
"not simply to meet as many potential voters"
--Well hooray for fucking Democracy. I can see you really don't believe in "representation."
"incentive to visit both"
--Why? If the urban areas had far more votes, why bother visiting rural areas? Or small states? Why not just campaign in the top 10-12 cities?
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
You raise the objection that 100% of voters in a state might vote for Smith, who loses a general election to Jones, and subsequently be compelled to support Jones in the electoral college. Your contention is that none of those voters need ever have bothered to vote. This is equivalent to claiming that we should all be able to predict election outcomes with perfect accuracy. Those voters would have enjoyed an opportunity to sway the election just like every other voter in America.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
You claim the purpose of a presidential campaign is to “campaign to the states.” Do you mean they ought to campaign in as many states as possible? That certainly does not occur under our current system, because only a few states are considered battlegrounds, and candidates tend to avoid states with a monolithic political orthodoxy unless their core support comes into question.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"You claim"
--No, the purpose is to get elected. The purpose of the Electoral College is to have the states elect the Pres. according to their constituents votes. The result of that is each state has a say. Therefore, a candidate ignores them at his own peril. I'm very sorry that this is all too complicated for you.
"does not occur"
--You're very wrong. I'd like to see you support that with facts. Candidates visit every state. As Obama claimed, he visited 57 out of 61.
NoGuff 1 year ago
Comment removed
quantumcodex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quantumcodex
"What "does not occur?"
--You see, that's called a "quote." I quoted you, as a courtesy, then wrote my response to that specific statement. So if you have a question of what I'm responding to, here's how you do it. You go find those words I quoted somewhere in a message you wrote. Then you will have your answer. See how that works now?
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
You say "the purpose of the electoral college is to have the states elect the president according to their constituents' votes." Only the first part of that sentence is true. The college is designed to allow states to elect the president. However, there is no stipulation that the states do so "according to their constituents' votes." State legislatures have the power to cast electoral votes by proxy in the electoral college according to their own state election laws.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"there is no stipulation"
--True just like there's no definition of "natural born citizen" in the Constitution. It was considered a known idea in our Founders' day. They are supposed to vote according to the voters wishes but are simply not compelled to. But when in modern history have they not? Their "choice" in voting is considered a formality. Remember the Democraps' "super-delegates?" The were created specifically to not have to vote per the People's votes. And what happened?
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
What do you even mean by "a known idea?" Having a common idea bantered around in American society back in 1776 is not legal grounds for enforcing such an idea at the expense of state legislative power in the year 2010. Also, your reference to "super-delegates" is out of place, because popular vote legislation passed by the states would appoint delegates not to act according to their own conscience, but to represent the majority wishes of the American people.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
You claim, "there's no definition of 'natural-born citizen' in the Constitution."
Actually, there is. It's called the Fourteenth Amendment. The precise words "natural-born citizen" do not appear, but the concept is made perfectly clear. The amendment says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside." How could this be any more clear?
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"The precise words "natural-born citizen" do not appear"
--Gee, and I constantly rail against dictionaries that define words that aren't even there. How CRAZY I am!!!
When will any of you idiot Liberals EVER make sense?
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Why do you care what specific phrases the Constitution uses to describe a natural-born citizen? The legal principle is clearly there under the Fourteenth Amendment, and has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"Why do you care"
--Yeah, you're right, the Constitution is simply an old, worn out document, written by rich self-important White racists, and is just outdated. I mean, why should anyone really care what it says?
"The legal principle is clearly there under the Fourteenth Amendment"
--No, it pertains to a different topic. See, you're still not getting it. It was meant to provide citizenship rights to former slaves. The natural born citizen clause describes a prerequisite.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Read the words of the Fourteenth Amendment carefully. Any person born in this country and subject to our laws is an American citizen. The emancipation of slaves following the Civil War was certainly a motivation for changing the Constitution, but the amendment goes way beyond simply turning slaves into voting citizens, as you can see when immigrant parents (who might have a green card but are not yet naturalized) have a child here who then automatically becomes a legal citizen.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quantumcodex
"Any person born in this country and subject to our laws is an American citizen"
--Yes...... and?
"then automatically becomes a legal citizen"
--The intention was to only award citizenship to children of immigrants who were actually seeking, and making progress towards, citizenship. This goes against the "anchor baby" scenario.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
I'm sorry, did I write "anchor baby?" I meant "instant Democrap." You see, the politicians (the Democraps) only favor keeping the incorrect interpretation only because they want to expand the party, and therefore keep them in office.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
To address your concerns about immigration, you can lobby to change the Constitution in a way that reflects your personal view of those children. However, the words of the Fourteenth Amendment are quite clear, regardless of the motivation behind them. The Supreme Court has ruled, for example, that a Chinese man born to parents who had no legal right even to apply for naturalization was nonetheless a natural-born citizen, despite the fact that his entire family were subjects of China.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"the Fourteenth Amendment are quite clear, regardless of the motivation behind them"
--So according to you the words of the 1st Amdt don't disallow government censorship of speech, press, religion, and assembly by the states. Right? Because it only addresses Congress. You see why you can't simply rely on only the text? If we did that, then there'd be no need for "interpretation." We'd simply follow the text.
"natural-born citizen"
--Maybe, considering the law as it stands now.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Regarding your bizarre conflation of First Amendment issues with those surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment, the answer is quite simple. As the Supreme Court has amply demonstrated in Gitlow v. New York (1925), under the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," the provisions of the First Amendment apply not only to Congress but to every state legislature.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"the provisions of the First Amendment apply not only to Congress but to every state legislature."
--What about the 2nd Amendment? It obviously does not, hence the McDonald case.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
You ask, "What about the 2nd Amendment? It obviously does not, hence the McDonald case."
No. The reasoning here is essentially identical to Fourteenth Amendment "due-process" interpretations in Gitlow v. New York (1925), extending the First Amendment to the states. The decision in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) extends the Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) to the states by virtue of the "due-process" clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quantumcodex
"extends the Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) to the states"
--Therefore, almost all gun laws, especially federal, are illegal.
NoGuff 1 year ago 2
@NoGuff
You say, "almost all [existing] gun laws, especially federal, are illegal."
Exactly. That's the idea. Not knowing precisely which gun laws you're including or excluding from the purview of McDonald v. Chicago, I'm not able to comment on whether you're right about every consequence of the case, but the decision clearly upholds the right to keep and bear arms. I'm certainly in favor of honoring the Second Amendment, since guns have historically played a role in escaping tyranny.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quantumcodex
"the decision clearly upholds the right to keep and bear arms. I'm certainly in favor of honoring the Second Amendment"
--If that's truly your belief then I have newfound respect for you. But why you believe the other things you do, given the facts, is a mystery.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
You question whether "that's truly your belief."
Absolutely. Your suspicion of my motives here is amusing. Firearms have always been preserved and treasured by American society, and for good reason. Plenty of Americans even today rely on hunting rifles and shotguns to derive some degree of nourishment from game or fowl in season. And violent urban crime is not driven by guns, but rather by profound travesties of economic, educational, medical, and legal justice.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
Inner city crime is a result of travesties of medical justice?
WOW!!!!! Now I've heard it all. Good night.
NoGuff 1 year ago
Comment removed
quantumcodex 1 year ago
Comment removed
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Here's an example.
A company builds an incinerator in a poor neighborhood because every upscale community organizes in vehement opposition. The incinerator produces airborne toxins, causing local children to develop asthma. Those children repeatedly miss school and are held back. One boy drops out of school, joins a gang, and ends up murdering a rival gang member. The boy is convicted and sentenced to life in prison, and the company makes a handsome profit. That's not justice.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
NoGuff 1 year ago
Comment removed
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Frankly, we've already tried your economic philosophy in America, giving rise to obscenely concentrated wealth and power in the hands of industrialists known appropriately as Robber Barons.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Here's a second hypothetical, but reasonable, example.
A South Central Los Angeles high school in 2010 has 4,500 students in a building designed in 1963 to hold 2,000 students. Students never even try to eat lunch because the cafeteria is so hot, smelly, and overcrowded. The federal government then eliminates funding for the school, causing even more violence, because students are underperforming on standardized tests drawn up by curriculum experts in Washington. That's not justice.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Look, obviously criminals ought to be punished, but the point is, they're not necessarily the only ones who are morally culpable. Other forces do contribute to even local neighborhood atmospheres of fear, hatred, resentment, and anger, thereby contributing to periodic explosions of overt violence on the street.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"they're not necessarily the only ones who are morally culpable"
--So I could argue in court next month that society made me drive my car without valid registration, and that the State should pay my ticket. Right?
NoGuff 1 year ago
Comment removed
quantumcodex 1 year ago
Comment removed
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
You're apparently very confused about the distinction between moral responsibility and legal responsibility. They're not the same. And if you did argue, "society made me drive my car without valid registration," you'd just be a complete fool.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quantumcodex
"And if you did argue, "society made me drive my car without valid registration," you'd just be a complete fool"
--Same with arguing that an industrial plant near where you live made you drop out of high school, join a gang, and kill someone. Personal responsibility. It's that concept that the Left has tried to erase from our society.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
You claim, "the Left has tried to erase from our society" concepts of "personal responsibility." Give me a break. This is high comedy. Do you see any "personal responsibility" in committing perjury before the United States Congress, abrogating the Fourth Amendment with secret wire-tapping programs, violating the Geneva Convention with secret programs of extra-judicial torture, and conspiring to grant monopolistic "no-bid" contracts to Halliburton in Iraq? That's the Right's legacy.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"committing perjury before the United States Congress"
--Like Obama did with the illegal aliens getting healthcare, and no abortion funding from federal funds?
"secret wire-tapping programs"
--They're supposed to get judicial warrants, but that has nothing to do with personal responsibility. Did Bush ever deny he did that?
"conspiring to grant"
--What conspiring? They simply did it. So did Clinton, to Haliburton. The "right's" legacy? Excuse me? Bill Clinton's a Republican?
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Yes, President George W. Bush denied his constitutional obligation under the Fourth Amendment to obtain warrants to conduct surveillance on Americans, just as he denied his obligation to adhere to the principle of 'habeus corpus,' and his obligation to adhere to the Geneva Convention accords by not torturing prisoners. Telephone conversations of law-abiding Americans were tapped without any warrants or judicial oversight as part of the "war on terror."
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"denied his constitutional obligation"
--No, his Attorney General & other adivsors told him that under the P.A. or FISA laws he had the authority. And he probably did.
'habeus corpus"
--And when did he violate it?
"by not torturing prisoners"
--He didn't, nor did he order it.
"Telephone conversations of law-abiding Americans were tapped"
--And were found to be a huge waste of time. Why would they continue? Law-abiding citizens don't funnel money to/from Hamas or Al Qaeda.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
You defend Bush, Jr. by saying "his Attorney General told him" he could legally violate the Fourth Amendment. So you're arguing he had no personal responsibility as president to determine the truth behind John Ashcroft's statements, or those of Alberto Gonzales? That's absurd. And he did not have any authority to circumvent the judicial system, because FISA was designed to smoothly integrate the courts into the process of gathering intelligence.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quantumcodex
"So you're arguing he had no personal responsibility as president"
--No, I was offering a direct response to your direct claim, thanks.
"And he did not have any authority to circumvent the judicial system"
--You mean like Obama is circumventing the legislative system?
"FISA was designed to smoothly integrate the courts into the process of gathering intelligence"
--Via warrants after the fact?
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
The problem is, Bush's policy was dismissive even of requesting warrants through the FISA courts after the fact. There are legal ways of conducting surveillance in America, but Bush's policy was not one of them.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"Bush's policy was not one of them"
--Isn't that why it was struck down by the SCOTUS?
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
George W. Bush was the commander-in-chief when army personnel reported to Donald Rumsfeld and other high-level commanders that Abu Ghraib prison was dangerously overcrowded and bordering on chaos. These expert United States Army voices on the ground in Iraq were routinely ignored, and as a consequence, chaos did indeed erupt at Abu Ghraib and prisoners were indeed tortured.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"Abu Ghraib prison was dangerously overcrowded and bordering on chaos"
--Probably why they assigned a General with experience to oversee the prison. I'm not saying that place wasn't fucked up, I'm saying it was a prison, not Club Med.
"chaos did indeed erupt at Abu Ghraib and prisoners were indeed tortured"
--There was no chaos. Their mistreatment was systematic & orderly. It all happened on the night/graveyard shift. If Bush wanted torture performed, why only then?
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
Torture did not only occur at Abu Ghraib "on the graveyard shift." That's the whole reason the CIA spent time and energy developing foreign detention centers in places such as Saudi Arabia, or Egypt. Prisoners were handed over to CIA and foreign interrogators at these "black sites" for systematic torture.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quantumcodex
"Prisoners were handed over to CIA and foreign interrogators at these "black sites" for systematic torture"
--If it's illegal to hand prisoners over with the intent of torture, why not just torture the prisoners themselves? Doesn't make sense, even when its being done covertly.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
You torture people in a foreign country so Americans who care about the rule of law in this country never find out about the torture programs, at least in theory. Your reasoning is like saying, "if murder is a crime, why hire a hit man? Why not just do it myself and shoulder the blame?" Obviously, you're not going to say such a thing if you're thinking clearly, because you'd just be coming closer to getting caught red-handed and later convicted of a felony.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@NoGuff
You say, about Abu Ghraib, "their mistreatment was systematic and orderly." Frankly, that's even worse than chaos. Having systematic mistreatment of prisoners implicates the highest levels of military and civilian leadership.
quantumcodex 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
"that's even worse than chaos"
--Umm... please go look up the word "chaos." It doesn't mean "stuff I don't like." It is the opposite of order & system.
"implicates the highest levels of military and civilian leadership"
--Only if they ordered it and approved of it. Those doing the mistreatment on their own can be orderly & systematic, you know. I don't see how you make thise leaps of logic & fact.
NoGuff 1 year ago
@quantumcodex
Please go away. You're a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist, so there's no getting through to you even with facts, logic, morality, reasoning, or historical precedent. You have to come around to reality on your own, like I did.
Besides, this is all way off topic. Goodbye. Oh, wait, you're a Marxist so "Goodbye" is too close to a religious references. So, how about "smell you later."
NoGuff 1 year ago
@NoGuff
I'm honestly amazed by your callous statements about American society. So I'm just going to repeat one here, in a position of emphasis and glory for other readers, if by some miracle there are any, to read at some future date.
"WE DON'T apply the same standards of ethics, morality, and compassion to the poor" as we do to the wealthy.
What a despicably true statement about America today.
quantumcodex 1 year ago